‘Hail Caesar. Battles with model soldiers in the ancient era’

What can I say that hasn’t been said a thousand times already on the internet? Well something that isn’t copied boilerplate from the advertising puffs I suppose. Phrases appear time after time after time in searches on myriad blogs, reviews and commentaries. I’m sure the author is a great guy and incredibly talented but do I need to be told every time that:

‘The Hail Caesar Rulebook is a set of wargames rules written by the hugely talented Rick Priestley who is something of an expert in Ancients gaming.’

Apparently I do.

But the rules?

First edition was 2011 and now there is a second. Which I haven’t seen and am certainly not going to buy. All comments refer to ed. 1.

If you love these rules I apologise now, I am a grumpy old curmudgeon. But no, just no.

What’s wrong with them? Don’t they produce a great game?

You know, I don’t know. I’ve never finished reading them and certainly never got around to sticking any figures or even cardboard cut out bases down on the table to find out. I drifted off somewhere around ‘Terrain’ I think and every time I’ve thought ‘I’ll just bash some stuff down on the table and give ‘em a fair go’ I’ve woken up  dazed and confused.

I had the same problem with Warhammer Historical and Black Powder and Pike and Shotte. Too much explanation in the middle of rules, too much irrelevant banter in the wrong place and too much irrelevant pictorial twaddle padding out the rules. Add to that they are hard back and don’t stay open where you need them and they max out my irritation factor before I get to trying the rules themselves.

Don’t misunderstand me; I love explanations of why rules are written as they are what a mechanism purports to do and why an author wanted to make something the way he did. That offers super insights and often helps interpretation of any nuances you might miss in a game. But not in the middle of the rules. Show me the rule. Put the interpretation at the end or beginning of the section or in an addendum or on the facing page. And make it relevant. What do I mean?

 p.7 ‘How the Rules Are Constructed’:

Do we find out how the rules are constructed? No. Why we use a d6? No. Why basing is as it is? No. Why light infantry is as powerful/weak as it is? No. We don’t get told how the mechanisms are supposed to fit together and why the phases are in the order they are. We do however find out why they are often incomplete – because they want you to think of them as ‘a core set of rules for command, movement and combat’. They tell us there are ‘special rules’ for your own tastes and types of game which may or may not be a good thing but not how they fit together. This may be a problem with the wording of the section title. If it had been called ‘Why They Are a Framework to be Adapted to Different Eras’ I might not have been left wondering what I had missed. The rest of the stuff may be in the book somewhere but I haven’t looked that assiduously.

Once we get to descriptions of how the units are set up for fighting we get:

p. 13 The Unit’s Leader [points for correct apostrophe use – I appreciate that].

‘During the game we will have recourse to arrange formations, measure distances or calculate targets from the centre of a unit’s front rank. Where practical it is a good idea to place the unit’s leader model in this position to mark the middle of the unit’s front edge. The rules that follow often refer to the centre front or leader position.’

Why? Why not:

‘You measure distances from the centre of a unit’s front rank. A good idea is to place a leader figure there to avoid argument.’

We then get another six lines saying use the appropriate figures for leaders and standards.

We then get a red rectangle with a white arrow showing us where the centre of the front rank is.

And that’s the useful stuff (if it is) on p.13. The rest is taken up with a completely irrelevant bit of fluff about Ammianus Marcellinus in a text box taking up ¾ of a text column and the other half page is taken up by a picture of some Hoplite models being attacked in flank by other Hoplites – with no discernible leader figures in the middle of the front rank or any relation to Ammianus Marcellinus.

And so it goes on until we get to the end of the main rules and

‘Broken Divisions’ in the Victory and Defeat section. P.85

‘If a division has lost a substantial part of its fighting strength then its remaining units will attempt to quit the field. We refer to such divisions as broken divisions.

A division is deemed broken if at the start of the player’s turn more than half of its units are destroyed or have left the table whilst shaken (such units are unable to return and are therefore as good as destroyed).’

Why not: ‘A division which at the start of the player’s turn has had more than half its units destroyed or left the table shaken, is called a broken division and must attempt to leave the field immediately.’

On this basis the book, at 188 pages, could be reduced comfortably to around a hundred pages, probably much less if the pointless quotations and irrelevant pictures were removed. Now I’m told that some people like the pointless quotations and irrelevant pictures, fair play, but put them on one side of the page and stop interrupting the logical flow of rules. And I wonder how often you go back and look at the pictures and read the quotes? Enough to justify the price? Not for me.

Sixty of the pages are taken up with ‘worked examples’ of various battles which I like the idea of – I’m not sure I need sixty pages – but again the writing could be tighter.  Add the sheer inconvenience of the format: heavy hard back impossible to lay flat and read comfortably, especially while playing and it’s a ‘No thanks’ from me. There may be a brilliant game lurking there but I just haven’t found it yet.